I don`t know why everyone is so surprised that the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) apparently played fast and loose with halacha and fundamental rules of evidence in its investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, and that it subsequently disparaged the bet din in Israel that called them to task for having done so (news story and editorial, April 15).

Rabbi Yosef Blau, the mashgiach ruchani at Yeshiva University, is a prime mover in the RCA`s approach to the abuse issue and is also one of the prime movers in the Awareness Center — which has been criticized for publicizing charges of abuse that have been leveled against individuals whether or not those charges have ever been proven or even thoroughly investigated.

David Pollack

Jerusalem

Beyond Belief

The chutzpah of the RCA is beyond belief. An official bet din of the Chief Rabbinate in Eretz Yisrael rules that unless and until Rabbi Mordecai Tendler is afforded a bet din, the RCA is prohibited from taking any action that would negatively impact on him in his profession or communal efforts. So what does this self-proclaimed foremost rabbinical group do? Rather than appeal for a modification, it publicly dismisses the Israeli bet din as merely a "group of Israeli rabbis" who either willfully ignored the facts or were ignorant of them. Then, in full contempt of the bet din ruling, the RCA reaffirms its earlier decision, sans bet din, to expel Rabbi Tendler from the RCA! Simply incredible.

By the way, how is it possible that the RCA set out to rely on evidence gathered by non-Jews which would be posule eidus?

Boruch Kemmelman

(Via E-Mail)

Why No Bet Din?

I find it difficult to understand why the RCA believes that, as a matter of halacha, a bet din is not necessary in order to expel a member. Expulsion from a rabbinic organization for inappropriate conduct obviously will have a devastating impact on an individual`s future in the rabbinate. Surely the rabbis of the RCA are aware of the well-known dictum "Al pi shnayim adim yokum dovor." Yet the RCA literally trumpets the absence of a bet din in the decision-making process that resulted in the expulsion of Rabbi Tendler.

This is all the more disturbing in light of the RCA`s failure to reconsider convening a bet din after the Forward and Jewish Week carried story after story about the RCA`s investigation and — without any hard evidence cited — all but convicted Rabbi Tendler even before the RCA’s investigation was completed. Whatever merit the RCA’s machers saw in their process before the public onslaught against Rabbi Tendler gathered steam, surely they could not have failed to grasp that the matter had evolved into something far more consequential than whether someone could continue as a member of the organization.

Naftalie Farkash

New York, NY

`Catastrophic Implications`

I wonder what members of the RCA would think if someone who disagreed with a ruling of its standing bet din, the Bet Din of America, dismissed it as a group of rabbis acting out of ignorance. How in Heaven`s name could a distinguished body such as the RCA display such disrespect — in a formal statement — for an official religious court and arm of the Chief Rabbinate?

I hope the leadership of the RCA is carefully considering the catastrophic implications of its actions. I am not a posek, but as The Jewish Press pointedly noted last week, the ability of the RCA`s Bet Din of America to summon people before it appears to have been compromised — and the legitimacy of seruvim it issues may be in doubt. In addition, members of the RCA should think long and hard about continuing their membership. If Rabbi Tendler could be mercilessly battered in the media through selective leaks from insiders at the RCA, and then expelled through a fundamentally subjective process on questionable evidence inadmissible in a bet din, what might the future hold for other pulpit rabbis?

Henry Rausch

(Via E-Mail)

Just Wondering

Two observations on the Tendler controversy:

1) If someone from the Satmar community had publicly insulted the members of an Israeli religious court, wouldn’t the RCA have emptied a thesaurus in expressing its indignant reaction ?

2) How many of those responsible for the RCA`s handling of the Tendler affair could hold a halachic candle to the members of the Jerusalem rabbinical court that ruled against them? And while the RCA refers to the Tendler expulsion as a matter of "peer review," how many of those who judged Rabbi Tendler are really his "peers" in Shas and poskim?

Nechemia Witkin

Ramat Gan, Israel

Unique Dimensions

While I recognize that the RCA`s investigation of Rabbi Tendler may not have followed the standards we would have hoped for, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the problem of rabbinic abuse has unique dimensions. The usual rules may not be adequate to get to the truth of such matters, which by definition revolve around one person’s word against another’s and involve acts usually committed in non-public venues. This may be scant solace to the accused, but it is an unfortunate fact of life.

Bina Dolowitz

New York, NY

Charges Deserve Further Scrutiny

I trust The Jewish Press is not suggesting that just because a bet din did not confirm the charges against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, those charges must therefore be without merit. Consider the public dismay at the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake jury verdicts. I happen to believe that the allegations against Rabbi Tendler bear further scrutiny, despite their being mishandled by the RCA. That’s why I hope the RCA will convene a bet din as the Jerusalem bet din said it should.

An Inappropriate Process (Part III) Posted 4/20/2005 By Editorial Desk Where Are The 1,000 RCA Rabbis?

On page 92 of this week’s issue we feature excerpts from an article by Susan Rosenbluth, editor of the Jewish Voice and Opinion, on the Rabbinical Council of America`s investigation into abuse charges brought against Rabbi Mordecai Tendler. The facts set forth in the article are based upon numerous documents that were submitted by Rabbi Tendler in defending against the allegations made against him. We have reviewed those documents and agree with Ms. Rosenbluth`s description of their contents. As we have said over the course of the past several weeks, we have been unable to find any credible evidentiary support for the expulsion order issued by the RCA and believe that the procedures followed by the RCA were invalid as well.

As regards procedures, we have noted that the RCA violated its own rules. Article III, Section 4 of the RCA’s constitution plainly requires resort to a bet din where a member is to be discharged for cause. Despite the RCA’s assertion last week that a "vaad hakovod" or "peer review" is authorized by its constitution, nowhere in that document are those words mentioned. Only the term Bet Din Hakovod appears. Not surprisingly, the RCA’s constitution was drafted and adopted when the Rav, zt"l, was alive and functioning as the chairman of the RCA`s Halacha Commission.

In this connection, it is significant to note that the RCA was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation under the law of New York State. That law provides that an organization such as the RCA is not authorized to act in a manner that is inconsistent with its constitution. If it does so act, as the RCA has done here, its act is a nullity as a matter of law. In other words, its act is void.

Furthermore, halachically speaking, if one applies the rule of dinah d`malchusa dina (the din applies the law of the state) — and there is no reason why that rule should not apply here — the RCA’s expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler was a nullity as a matter of halacha as well.

We now turn to the RCA`s claim that Rabbi Tendler refused to appear before the Vaad Hakovod. Who are the members of the Vaad Hakovod? Nobody knows, not even the Vaad Hakovod, for all we know. The RCA statement speaks of rabbis, lawyers, and psychologists — but stubbornly refuses to identify the members of the Vaad Hakovod. By contrast, the identity of members of a secular court or a bet din is always known to the litigants and the public. Neither the law nor the halacha places stock in secret tribunals. We do not live in the Soviet Union. The bottom line is, the Vaad Hakovod has acted as just such a tribunal.

Equally important, the Vaad Hakovod does not have a published or fixed set of rules of practice or procedure. Again, by contrast, when a litigant appears before a secular court, his attorney can refer to established rules that govern the court`s actions and counsel his client accordingly. Similarly, when a litigant appears before a bet din, the rules that govern the bet din`s actions are embodied in the Shulchan Aruch. The Vaad Hakovod goes so far as to say that it is "entitled to determine, in a manner the Vaad chooses, who is or who is not fit to be a member." In other words, put aside the Shulchan Aruch, dispense with a bet din, and disregard the rules of the courthouse. The Vaad Hakovod has its own set of rules — although nowhere are those rules published or available to any person this ad hoc group may proceed against.

In sum, the Vaad Hakovod is a faceless, nameless group acting as a law unto itself but demanding unquestioning obedience to any order it issues for individuals to appear before it. What person in his right mind would ever appear before such a group? If a lawyer counseled his client to do so, he would be guilty of serious malpractice. At all times Rabbi Mordecai Tendler demanded that a bet din proceeding be initiated and insisted that he would eagerly appear in such a forum. However, his demands for a bet din were repeatedly denied.

For these reasons, among others, the Jerusalem regional bet din of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel voided the action of the RCA and demanded that the RCA proceed to a din Torah before a competent bet din. The RCA is now reportedly using every bit of political muscle available to it to have the Jerusalem bet din modify its ruling. We can`t fathom what basis exists for such a modification. In any event, given the disrespect the RCA has shown for the Jerusalem bet din and its ruling, we would expect that any application for modification would be summarily dismissed. As our readers will recall, the RCA statement, published in last week`s Jewish Press, mockingly referred to the Jerusalem bet din as "Israeli rabbis" rather than a duly constituted bet din of the Chief Rabbinate, and portrayed the members of that bet din as persons who willfully denied the facts or were ignorant of them.

Throughout this sad episode we have wondered why, despite the distortions of the RCA’s constitution, the blatant failures of due process, and the insults hurled at the Chief Rabbinate, no RCA members have spoken out against these abuses. The RCA is an organization that boasts a membership of 1,000 rabbis and claims to be the largest organization of its kind in the world. One would have thought that there would have been greater concern for the disrepute into which the organization has been brought by the current leadership.

Investigate The RCA

As confirmed by the Susan Rosenbluth article, there is no credible evidence to support the RCA`s expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler from membership. Not only are there good defenses to the RCA`s charges, but the charges themselves have no substance. We have no choice but to reach this conclusion because we have for weeks requested responses from the RCA to our questions and sought interviews to obtain the benefit of the RCA`s evaluation of the documents as well as its thinking, but all we have received to date has been silence. An inquiry needs to be conducted to determine who was responsible for pursuing this matter and what information was available upon which to base a conclusion, especially since we understand that the decision of the Vaad Hakovod to expel was not unanimous.

As noted, the RCA has refused to speak with us about the particulars of this case. In sharp contrast, however, details and particulars were leaked to and appeared in publications such as The Jewish Week and the Forward. An investigation is necessary to determine who leaked the information and the purpose of the leaks. From where we sit — and from the letters that have been coming in it seems many of our readers agree with us — it appears that those who leaked information were interested in conditioning the public`s mind before the investigation was completed and the decision rendered.

Furthermore, we find it troubling that the RCA, an Orthodox organization, was comfortable sharing information with two publications that n the past have mounted unmistakable assaults on Orthodox personalities and Orthodoxy itself. The conclusion we are forced to reach is that those who leaked information intentionally collaborated with those they knew would be willing tale-bearers. All the more reason an inquiry is necessary to determine the sources of those leaks and the circumstances surrounding them.

Finally, an investigation is needed in order to determine who authored the odious statement of the RCA which insulted the Jerusalem bet din of the Chief Rabbinate. It’s bad enough that the RCA rebuffed the bet din; what’s even worse is the flippant manner in which the rebuff was delivered.

A blue ribbon panel is needed to investigate this sordid affair. We are advised that the RCA’s annual convention is scheduled to take place shortly. First on the agenda should be a thorough airing of the Tendler mess and a free and open discussion of the need for new leadership. At this point it appears that new leadership is what it will take to get to the bottom of all of this.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But no one denies that the Jewish Press has a huge readership among Jews whose Rabbis are part of the RCA.

The pressure is mounting on the RCA. I am aware that powerful people in the RCA are calling for a change of leadership and an investigation into the individuals who participated in the Tendler "investigation".

The following is from the Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out Blog. I thought it was appropriate to post here since this blog has the same spammer.

Thank you Mr. Spammer Man! http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/

I want to thank the person who keeps posting the U.S. Constitution to our blog. If it wasn't for that individual I wouldn't know that anyone was reading what is published here. Not only is someone reading it, but they are taking the time out to harass it. I really feel honored that you seem to feel threaten by what we write.

When you are attempting to make a difference in the world (in this case give survivors of sexual violence a place to talk), and no one harasses you, you have to stop and wonder if your doing your job well?

We all should feel honored that our voices are so threatening to at least one individual that they have the need to harass us. Each and every time they post the constitution to this blog I am reminded of how important this blog is. Thank you for helping me know I'm doing the right thing by keeping this blog going.

From a marketing perspective when someone comes to the blog and sees that there are 20 - 30 comments to each posting. It makes it appear like we are extremely popular. Then when you read the postings are mostly from a spammer, you have to really read the content of the blog.

Our spammer is helping the world to see how important it is to give survivors of sexual violence an outlet to speak out. You are providing the evidence we needed, that our voices are have not been heard in the past, and one of the reasons was because we where threatened into silence. It's not going to work anymore.

"Our spammer is helping the world to see how important it is to give survivors of sexual violence an outlet to speak out. You are providing the evidence we needed, that our voices are have not been heard in the past, and one of the reasons was because we where threatened into silence. It's not going to work anymore."

Dummy. You think a blog is an "outlet to speak out"? Bring charges in a court of law, let the Times get a hold of the story - THAT is an outlet. This blog is Fantasyland. Paula Jones was heard. Gennifer Flowers was heard. But it was only because they were willing and able to stand on the frontlines. To hide in anonymity and take no responsibility for yourself nor your words is not speaking out - it is merely the fantasy, self-delusion of speaking out.

If you read the post above yours you will see that the posting comes from the survivors blog, not this one.

I agree with that posting. I think it's wonderful that the world can see how uneducated Jewish communities are on the ramifications of sexual violence, and how poorly many of our communities address it.

It's obvious that Monsey lives in the dark ages. B'H' for the Internet, at least more and more people can see how dangerous it is to live in such an isolated community, where both offenders and those who protect sexual predators run rampant.

Living in an insulated community may have it's benefits, but it also has its pitfalls. One is that families do not learn how to protect their children or women from people like Tendler. It's really pretty scary when you think about it.

While I am no fan of Rabbi Tendler, the article does raise legitimate questions about the RCA's process. If its true that their consitution requires a Beis Din, then they should conduct such a Beis Din. If all the allegations are true, as the RCA has claimed, then they would have no problem dismissing him then. Another advantage of a Bais Din, is that the information will be public, and finally released for everyone to judge.

If one reads the RCA's comments, they only determined that he acted in "A matter unbefitting". That can be as easily as a simple Yichud violation, and does in no way substantiate the claims being made against him. Incidently, there is no claims being made, there are only rumors and heresay.

A photograph of a 24-year-old Monsey man and details of his conviction for sexually abusing a child have been sent to Ramapo families.

Yoel XXXXXX was classified by a court as a Level 2 offender, which is considered at moderate risk of becoming a repeat offender.

XXXXX pleaded guilty in 2002 to second-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a child, all misdemeanors. He admitted in County Court to having sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl. The sexual abuse took place in the Spring Valley and Ramapo area.

A photograph of a 24-year-old Monsey man and details of his conviction for sexually abusing a child have been sent to Ramapo families.

Yoel Oberlander was classified by a court as a Level 2 offender, which is considered at moderate risk of becoming a repeat offender.

Oberlander pleaded guilty in 2002 to second-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a child, all misdemeanors. He admitted in County Court to having sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl. The sexual abuse took place in the Spring Valley and Ramapo area.

Both police departments investigated Oberlander, who was sentenced to six years' probation.

Spring Valley police notified the East Ramapo school district that Oberlander had registered his home address in Monsey. The Ramapo Police Department also was notified.

Earlier this month, East Ramapo officials sent about 8,000 letters containing Oberlander's photo, conviction and ZIP code home with students to give to their parents. The district also sent the information to private schools in Ramapo.

Under state law, police can tell school districts only the ZIP code for a Level 2 offender, not the full address. A full address is provided for those considered high risk, or Level 3. The low-risk category is Level 1.

Oberlander was among several sex offenders recently reported to East Ramapo school district residents. People have posted their photos in town, though in some places, residents said, Oberlander's photo was taken down.

The notifications are sent out after an offender gets a classification hearing in County Court. A judge decides if a person is Level 1, 2 or 3. Hearings are held for those convicted between 1996 and 2000, those moving in from another state and those recently convicted.

A SEX OFFENDER classification hearing was held for defendant, who had been sentenced to probation after conviction for seconddegree sexual abuse. He was a presumed Level 2 sex offender based on an 85 point score on a riskassessment instrument. Defendant, "chemically castrated" by medical treatments reducing his bloodtestosterone level, argued that the instrument was erroneous because he did not employ "forcible compulsion." The court, however, required defendant's registration as a Level 2 sex offender. It found insufficient evidence to conclude that an elevated testosterone level was the sole cause of defendant's actions and that defendant has a psychological abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior. The court determined that forcible compulsion may be found to result from an express or implied threat, which must be viewed in the context of a frightened 11 year old girl alone in an automobile with an adult who has placed his hand under her dress.

3)Decision of Interest. June 24, 2003New York Law Journal

Rockland County County Court Judge Kelly

People v. Yoel Oberlander - The Court held a sex offender classification hearing pursuant to 168 of the Correction Law. The hearing was held to classify the above named defendant who had just been sentenced to six years probation following his conviction for Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree. The defendant was present and was represented by counsel.

In connection with the hearing, the Court reviewed the pre-sentence report with pre-sentence memoranda, as well as the risk assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney's Office. The Court examined psychiatric and psychological reports from Dr. Thomas and Dr. Berlin respectively. Additionally, the Court heard testimony from Dr. Thomas concerning his clinical opinion regarding the defendant risk to re-offend and the defendant's course of treatment, including the inter-muscular anti-androgen therapy.

Dr. Thomas has indicated that he has undertaken the responsibility of continuing therapy with the defendant. As part of that continuing treatment, in conjunction with weekly psychotherapy, Dr. Thomas will continue with the monthly injections of Depo-Lupron and continue to monitor the levels of testosterone in the defendant's blood. Further, Dr. Thomas has assured the Court that he will report any problems to the defendant's probation officer.

As a result of the treatments so far, the testosterone level in the defendant's blood has been significantly lowered. According to Dr. Thomas, the defendant has been "chemically castrated" and thereby rendered virtually asexual.

The recommendation contained in the Risk Assessment Instrument is the presumptive risk level to be applied to an offender. In this case, the defendant received an aggregate score of 85 points when scored by the District Attorney, making him a presumptive level two.

The Court finds that consistent with the risk level instrument, the defendant should be classified as a "level 2" offender. The Court bases its determination on an evaluation of the criteria set forth in Correction Law 168-l(5) including, but not limited to, the defendant's history, the nature of the offense, the number of victims and vulnerability of the victims.

The defendant contends the Risk Assessment Instrument is erroneous in that he did not employ forcible compulsion (10 points) and that the evidence did not demonstrate three or more victims (30 points). In fact, in a prior incident, the defendant made admissions of exposing his penis to young girls on five occasions over the two week period prior to his arrest. Five victims signed depositions in reference to exposure incidents in which the defendant was identified. Forcible compulsion is not confined to physical force, but may be found to result from a threat, express or implied, which must be viewed in the context of a frightened eleven year old girl alone in an automobile with an adult who has placed his hand under her dress.

In any event, the factors listed in the statute are not exhaustive and special circumstances may warrant a departure from the presumptive risk level if aggravating factors are present. The Court finds that an override would be warranted in any event, since the defendant has a psychological abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior. Dr. Berlin's report demonstrates that the defendant has a sexual disorder that manifested itself in a pattern of genital exhibitionism that escalated in his fondling of a young girl.

The defendant's sexual fantasies and recurrent urges concerning sexual activities with young girls continued even after intervention. Thereafter, aggressive pharmocological treatment in the form of Depo-Luperon medication was recommended to suppress the production of testosterone, to increase the defendant's capacity for self-control and to prevent sexual criminality.

While the defendant's course of treatment will undoubtedly have the physical effect of lowering the defendant's testosterone, the Court has not been provided with sufficient evidence such that it can determine that the treatment will alleviate the risk of re-offense. While intuitively, the Court understands that an elevated testosterone level will increase sexual urges, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that an elevated testosterone level was the sole cause of the defendant's actions.

Additionally, Dr. Thomas' experience with the Depo-Luperon treatment is anecdotal, and his personal experience with long term treatment is non-existent. According to Dr. Thomas, he has treated a total of eight patients with this inter-muscular anti-androgen therapy. However, the longest he has treated any one of those patients was two and one half years. It is anticipated that the defendant's course of treatment will exceed two and one half years.

While Dr. Thomas was no doubt earnest in his belief that the defendant does not pose a risk to re-offend in the future, that position is not supported by any personal experience. Further, the Court has not received a report of any reliable study of the long term efficacy of this course of treatment.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the public would be best served if the defendant were required to register as a level two offender.

JWB is spamming his own blog, posting long messages regarding another topic in a thread about the Jewish Press and RMT. What a true moron.

When he complains about people spamming his blog, feel free to remind him that he does it as well. (However, he will probably delete his spam and deny that he every posted it, just like his other posts.)

Good point. It looks like JWB is getting desperate and trying to make RMT look guilty by association, since the other guy is also from Monsey. I guess that in the absence of facts, JWB has to find other ways (lies, innuendo, etc) to make RMT look guilty.

a plague on both your houses, in fact 10 plagues on both your houses.....what is now evident is that both the RMT and adulteress' camps have lied to us from the beginning, and that everyone involved here is guilty as sin

but we are stuck footing the bill for this and having our community destroyed

"Dummy. You think a blog is an "outlet to speak out"? Bring charges in a court of law, let the Times get a hold of the story - THAT is an outlet. This blog is Fantasyland. Paula Jones was heard. Gennifer Flowers was heard. But it was only because they were willing and able to stand on the frontlines. To hide in anonymity and take no responsibility for yourself nor your words is not speaking out - it is merely the fantasy, self-delusion of speaking out."

Whether you may think I am Yuri or anybody else, the comment still holds true, no matter who I am. And, furthermore, anybody who thinks a blog is "speaking out" IS a dummy, whether male or female. One can only speak out when one takes responsibility for his/her words. With anonymity, there is no responsibility and, therefore, no speaking out.

At 3:15 AM, Anonymous said... “The fall of MT was exactly 1290 days after 9/11. Happy is he who waits and reaches 1335 days.”

To all you Korach kool aid Non-sense Hypocrites; and the 1335 days some anonymous referred?

Just as the president, michelle and RMT got the police on a women consistency participating for 8 years as a member of KNH to damage her credibility and falsify a police report; and to threaten her as they have a history of doing this to witnesses, those who stand up against him and who have something on him; so too God’s hand resolved this crime done to her. March 15 in 2003, the 11th of Adar parsha Vayikrah same name as the whole book Leviticus, we read Zochar, and a few days before Purim, the police were called on her as she normally attended shul for the last 8 years; so too this year 2005-March-17, parsha Vayikrah and Zochar, Adar 7th Mosha Rebenus Yarsite and a week later Purim; Rabbi Mordecai Tendler was expelled from the RCA. Measure for measure. God had the RCA write a letter and via mail expelled RMT, just like a letter in the story of Purim was written. Purim is the story of Ester and Mordecai; how ironic another woman Mordecai abused and falsely defamed. The women they got the police on 2 years ago came to KNH on the heels of another he too falsely defamed and set-up.

we have all been taken for fools...both by the Tendlers and by the anti-RMTs...both have lied to us all from the beginning for their own motivations and, yes, PROFIT...and we have permitted them both to lead us along....now both the RCA and the rabbis in Israel have let us know that everyone has lied from the outset, and we continue to blindly follow one camp or the other

Luke Ford (www.lukeford.net) published a letter today from the only actual accuser of RMT to date, WITH NAME VOLUNTARILY INCLUDED. So much for JWB's contention that anonymity served a purpose. It's only purpose was to permit multiplication of rumors into "thruths" and represent that "12 women" had problems when only one actually came forth.

Given what she says in her letter, the RCA and Israel Beis Din are completely correct.

And clearly, BOTH SIDES HAVE LIED COMPLETELY HERE to further their own particular gain.

JWB, once again you have been unmasked for the complete fraud that you are-- there was never a need to hide identities of the accuser, save to create a suggestion that there were many others. And it appears the Holy Rabbi was in a voluntarily adulterous affair.